BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 13th day of December 2023.
PRESENT:
Shri. D.B.Binu President
Shri.V.Ramachandran Member
Smt. Sreevidhia T.N Member
C.C. No.93/2015
Complainant
K.P.Sudheer, Prorietor, Seemas Wedding Collections, Angamaly-683 570, residing at Karothykudy House, Opp.Police quarters, Perumbovoor, Ernakulam District.
(By Adv.Raja Raja Varma, “Gourinandanam”, VRRA-5, Vayanasala Road, Chithrapuzha, Tripunithura, Ernakulam-682 309)
Vs.
Opposite parties
- Goodyear India Limited, Mathura Road, Ballagarh, Faridabad-121 004, Haryana, India Rep. by its Managing Directo.
- Planet Tyres, East Nagar (Near East Chapel), M.C.Road, Pin-683 572 rep. by its proprietor, Puthussery Jose
(Ops rep. by Adv.Babu Cherukara, Adv.K.S.Gireesan)
O R D E R
V.Ramachandran, Member
The complainant states that he had purchased two tyres from the 2nd opposite party on 04.07.2014 as per bill No.911 for Rs.46800/- which were manufactured by the 1st opposite party M/s.Goodyear India Ltd. It is assured that the products manufactured and marketed by the 1st opposite party in this complaint are having excellent nature eventhough they charged higher rate than the other tyre manufacturers. At the time of purchase, the 2nd opposite party fixed the tyres into the car of the complainant after filling it with nitrogen gas stating that it will give more life to the tyres. At the time of fixing the tyres in the car the odometer showed 99973 kms . On 04.09.2014 during the regular washing of the car, the complainant noticed the right side tyre of the car is bulged and informed the 2nd opposite party. On 11.09.2014 the complainant was asked by the opposite party personnel to bring the car to their station at Ponnurunni to inspect the fault. But the complainant had not sent the car to Ponnurunni for inspection because there was a chances of blasting the tyre on the way by long driving and brought the car to the opposite party store at Perumbavoor. The technician who inspected the tyre after inspection reported that there was no manufacturing defect. The complainant further states that on 09.12.2014 while he was at Chinthamiyoor Chammanam Patti and Elampilly in Selam District at Tamilnadu and while travelling from Salem to Dindigal the right side tyre of the vehicle punctured and worn out at a lonely place at Aravakurichi near Karoor. The complainant further states that since there was no way to get a taxi or to get the tyre vulcanized arranged another taxi for his travel to Dindigal. The driver of the complainant purchased a new tyre and fixed it by paying service charges. The complainant alleges that puncture occurred due to peeling off outer rubber grip layer which is a manufacturing defect. The opposite party negligently inspected the tyre and stated that there was no manufacturing defect of the tyre. The complainant states that he had to spent Rs.25,000/- by way of repair and purchase of new tyre. Moreover he had suffered mental tension and therefore the complainant approached this Commission praying to issue direction to the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- as expenses of the complainant and liquidated damages of Rs.25,000/- for the mental agony suffered by the complainant.
2) Notice
Upon notice from the Commission the opposite parties 1 and 2 appeared and filed their version, since as the 2nd opposite party adopted the version of the 1st opposite party.
3) Version of the opposite parties
In the version the opposite parties stated that on 04.09.2014 company received a complaint from the complainant, regarding “bulge” in the Right Rear tyre of his car. That on receipt of complaint, as a matter of policy and procedure, goodwill and reputation, which the company enjoys globally, the company deputed one of its Tyre Expert, Mr. Sreejesh who is an experienced man and has acquired knowledge and skills through study and practice over the years to inspect the tyre alleged to have become defective, in line with the ‘Warranty Policy” and the process for claiming warranty’ of the company. The company’s warranty policy is a public document, which is displayed widely including in the company’s website.
The complainant had not submitted any expert opinion/Report to substantiate his claim. The complainant had not established his case with any material evidence to show that the tyre in question suffers from any kind of manufacturing defect. It is stated by the opposite party that the complainant is neither a rubber technologist/specialist nor has he got any certification from any other source/s to prove his allegations. The allegations raised by the complainant are unsubstantiated, vague and bald. It is stated that neither any improper/deficient service has been rendered nor any defective product has been sold by the company to the complainant and as such the complaint deserves to be dismissed for want of cause of action.
4) Evidence
The complainant had produced Edxbt.A1 to A8 and which are marked and the opposite party also produced Exbt.B1 to B3 which are also marked.
Exbt.A1 is certificate of registration.
Exbt.A2 is purchase bill (tax invoice) dated 04.07.2014 regarding the purchase of 2 tyres at the rate of Rs.20.436.62 each at a total of Rs.46800/- by Seemas Wedding Collection from Planet tyres who is the 2nd opposite party in this case.
Exbt.A3 is the photographs of Google shot.
Exbt.A4 is the spot inspection report of the Goodyear India Ltd.
Exbt.A5 (1) is a cash bill of Sarada and Company.
Exbt.A5 (2) also a bill of Kanjikode Fuels.
Exbt.A5(3) is a bill of token issued by Toll plaza
Exbt.A5 (4) is bill issued by Toll Plaza
Exbt.A5 (6) is a coupon of toll plaza
Exbt.A5 (7), A5 (8) are also toll receipts and
Exbt. A5(9) is a car parking coupon
Exbt.A6 is purchase invoice issued by Sundar Tyres
Exbt.A7 is bill issued by SS cars.
Exbt.A8 (1) is invoice issued to the opposite party and Exbt.A8 (4) is a postal receipt
Exbt.B1 is a warranty policy of 1st opposite party.
Exbt.B2 is spot inspection of the opposite party a
Exbt.B3 is a Tyre condition Analysis Guide
5) The following are the main points to be analysed in this case:
(i) Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite parties to the complainant?
ii) If so, whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief from the side of the opposite parties?
(iii) Costs of the proceedings if any?
6) Point No. (i)
To find out the real reason for puncture of the tyre which was supposed to run after occurring the puncture for a few kms as is stated by the complainant, an expert from Rubber Research Institute of India was appointed and they had inspected the tyre and submitted their report for this purpose. On going through the entire averments in the complaint, the contention raised by the opposite party in the version, and all through the evidences produced from either side the Commission reached into the following analysis, it can be seen from the complaint and various toll plaza bills produced by the complainant, the vehicle has continuously driven during day and night and since the report of the technicians of the opposite party who inspected the tyres of the vehicle stated that there was no manufacturing defect, the Commission has probed into the report of the experts consisting of a team of technologist and scientists headed by the Principal scientist (RT) and in the report of them it can be seen as follows-
- The tyre was examined. The said tyre is a ‘Run-On-Flat’ type.
- For this type of tyres the manufacturer warns certain safety condition for riding such as “Vehicle must be equipped with a low tyre inflation pressure warning system, when operating at low inflation pressure the speed do not exceed 80km/hour, avoid severe cornering, specially trained person should mount ‘run-on-flat’ tyre, more than 280 kPa (80 PSI) pressure should be required to seat the beads. The defective tyre is shown in Photgraph 1.
- The tyre is found to have the damages such as a) Tyre tread and the upper sidewall portion got separated for about 53 cm in the circumferential direction on one of the sides (Photograph 2) b) . It is also noticed that in continuation to the tread-side wall separation, rest of the sidewall on the same side also shows circumferential wear (Photograph 3).
- On the same side, the bead portion is also showed damage at five portions with a length of 4.5 cm, 8 cm, 9 cm., 4.5 cm, and 5 cm respectively (Photograph 4)
- On the second side of the tyre, upper side wall also shows circumferential wear, but is less severe than the first side and no tread-side wall separation occurred on this side (Photograph 5).
- The circumferential wear mark seen on both sides is equi-distant from the centre of the tyre tread.
- The tyre tread groove depth is 7 mm. This shows that the tyre could have been used further for a considerable period, if the damage doesn’t occur.
- Tyre tread shows a hardness of about 80 Shore A and the upper sidewall showed a hardness of 68 Shore A throughout the circumference of the tyre.
- The speciality of the RUN-ON-FLAT’ tyre is that the side wall is more reinforced than the conventional tyre, so as to facilitate further riding to a limited distance even after the occurrence of puncture.
-
From the nature of damage seen on the tyre it is inferred that ‘the damage may be due to the continued ride in the under inflated condition’ and hence cannot categorically attributed to any manufacturing defect.
There is no merit in the allegations raised by the complainant in the complaint and in the above circumstances, it is very clear that the complainant had failed to prove his case on merit and hence point No. (i) is found against the complainant.
7) Point Nos. (ii) and (iii)
Having found point No.(i) against the complainant, we do not have examined point Nos.(ii) and (iii).
Therefore, the following orders are issued.
The instant complaint is dismissed with no cost.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on 13th day of December 2023.
Sd/-
V.Ramachandran, Member
Sd/-
D.B.Binu, President
Sd/-
Sreevidhia T.N., Member
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
APPENDIX
Complainant’s evidence
Exbt.A1 is certificate of registration.
Exbt.A2 is purchase bill (tax invoice) dated 04.07.2014 regarding the purchase of 2 tyres at the rate of Rs.20.436.62 each at a total of Rs.46800/- by Seemas Wedding Collection from Planet tyres who is the 2nd opposite party in this case.
Exbt.A3 is the photographs of Google shot.
Exbt.A4 is the spot inspection report of the Goodyear India Ltd.
Exbt.A5 (1) is a cash bill of Sarada and Company.
Exbt.A5 (2) also a bill of Kanjikode Fuels.
Exbt.A5(3) is a bill of token issued by Toll plaza
Exbt.A5 (4) is bill issued by Toll Plaza
Exbt.A5 (6) is a coupon of toll plaza
Exbt.A5 (7), A5 (8) are also toll receipts and
Exbt. A5(9) is a car parking coupon
Exbt.A6 is purchase invoice issued by Sundar Tyres
Exbt.A7 is bill issued by SS cars.
Exbt.A8 (1) is invoice issued to the opposite party and Exbt.A8 (4) is a postal receipt
Opposite party’s evidence
Exbt.B1 is a warranty policy of 1st opposite party.
Exbt.B2 is spot inspection of the opposite party a
Exbt.B3 is a Tyre condition Analysis Guide
Deposition :
CR – Commission Report
Date of Despatch :
By Hand
By Post :
